The template presentation of Shell's employee evaluation system defines Current Estimated Potential (CEP) as: "The current realistic estimate of the highest job that an individual will be able to perform in his or her future career within Shell". It also spells out what Shell had in mind.
CEP is intended to:
Identify potential leaders;
Assess the status of the current talent pool;
Support career planning and talent development;
Ensure a common basis for measurement across the organisation
CEP is not intended to:
Guarantee or limit individual career advancement or success;
Be the sole factor in promotion or selection decisions;
Remain constant throughout an individual’s career. CEP ratings can move up or down in future assessments.
It was thus a gross abuse of the Shell system to warp it - our variant has to be Current Economic Potential, with the emphasis on "why not collect more money" - into a living demonstration of the Peter Principle, a management theory in which the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence." We were reminded of the anamolie when a naval officer was recently appointed to manage our life savings locked up in the Central Provident Fund (CPF). Shucks, does that mean all the funds invested are really underwater?
The system as it stands is that we have white horses guaranteed top paying jobs based on CEP solely, no other factors considered in the selection, and the evaluation rating remaining constant regardless of failings obvious in the public eye. One glaring example is that of a police commissioner ending up in a comfortable CEO chair. Worse to come, the world's higest paid political office is up for grabs. That could the hidden meaning when Goh Chok Tong said that Singapore is likely to become a 'garbage city'.
CEP is intended to:
Identify potential leaders;
Assess the status of the current talent pool;
Support career planning and talent development;
Ensure a common basis for measurement across the organisation
CEP is not intended to:
Guarantee or limit individual career advancement or success;
Be the sole factor in promotion or selection decisions;
Remain constant throughout an individual’s career. CEP ratings can move up or down in future assessments.
It was thus a gross abuse of the Shell system to warp it - our variant has to be Current Economic Potential, with the emphasis on "why not collect more money" - into a living demonstration of the Peter Principle, a management theory in which the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence." We were reminded of the anamolie when a naval officer was recently appointed to manage our life savings locked up in the Central Provident Fund (CPF). Shucks, does that mean all the funds invested are really underwater?
The system as it stands is that we have white horses guaranteed top paying jobs based on CEP solely, no other factors considered in the selection, and the evaluation rating remaining constant regardless of failings obvious in the public eye. One glaring example is that of a police commissioner ending up in a comfortable CEO chair. Worse to come, the world's higest paid political office is up for grabs. That could the hidden meaning when Goh Chok Tong said that Singapore is likely to become a 'garbage city'.